Williams v. Aylesworth

New York Supreme Court

Williams v. Aylesworth

7 N.Y.S. 111, 4 Silv. Sup. 44, 26 N.Y. St. Rep. 13

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 15, 1889

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 7 N.Y.S. 111 (Williams v. Aylesworth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Williams v. Aylesworth, 7 N.Y.S. 111, 4 Silv. Sup. 44, 26 N.Y. St. Rep. 13 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1889).

Pincite

Opinions

Merwin, J.

The plaintiff was allowed to prove, in substance, that the defendant verbally warranted that the note was good, and would be paid at maturity. This varied the written agreement represented by the written guaranty of collection. In Van Brunt v. Day, 81 N. Y. 251, a paroi agreement was allowed to be shown, because it did not qualify or change the defendant’s written guaranty. In the present case it would, and therefore would be inadmissible. There is, I think, as the case stands, no question of fraud in it. That question is not presented by the pleadings, and was not submitted to the jury. In the absence of fraud, the writing cannot be contradicted or varied. The plaintiff had, as the court held, lost by his loches his remedy on the written guaranty. He should not, in order to avoid this result, be allowed to prove an inconsistent paroi agreement on the same subject. Upon this ground I favor a reversal.

Hardin, P. J., concurs. For opinion, see 8 N. Y. Supp. 113.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Merwin, J.

The plaintiff was allowed to prove, in substance, that the defendant verbally warranted that the note was good, and would be paid at maturity. This varied the written agreement represented by the written guaranty of collection. In Van Brunt v. Day, 81 N. Y. 251, a paroi agreement was allowed to be shown, because it did not qualify or change the defendant’s written guaranty. In the present case it would, and therefore would be inadmissible. There is, I think, as the case stands, no question of fraud in it. That question is not presented by the pleadings, and was not submitted to the jury. In the absence of fraud, the writing cannot be contradicted or varied. The plaintiff had, as the court held, lost by his loches his remedy on the written guaranty. He should not, in order to avoid this result, be allowed to prove an inconsistent paroi agreement on the same subject. Upon this ground I favor a reversal.

Hardin, P. J., concurs. For opinion, see 8 N. Y. Supp. 113.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 N.Y.S. 111, 4 Silv. Sup. 44, 26 N.Y. St. Rep. 13, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-aylesworth-nysupct-1889.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack